CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I can kind of relate. In an argument with goodmale, I don't think he read even one of my arguments. I found that to be frustrating, since I'm putting in the time to read his poorly made arguments, and to think about the things he says to create my rebuttal, and to be callously disregarded and to have them not even read is low.
So am I supposed to say, yes it was, then you reply to me, no it wasn't, then I say yes it was, and we just keep this up until one of us quits replying?
I now have another point in favor of this side. It irritates me when you reply to me. You are always in dispute, even over issue we agree on, and your point is usually comprised on negative retorts but no actual fact or logic in favor of your point.
I don't understand your English. Though I know that this is a dispute to the argument before last, yet completely over looking the last one. Is it because I am right?
I'd prefer proper English. Your argument was fragments of sentences, and words surely left out. So messed up I couldn't understand the meaning, and that's the only reason I'd attack someone's English skills.
You've proven to me what kind of debater you are. Your faith lies in the score, that is the reason you dispute even when making a non disputing statement. That is the reason you do not care if you lose, because you feel if you say more, or you speak last, that you win. Thus theirs no point in arguing with you. Any debate you partake in will always end up being. "Yes, you did; No, you didn't; Yes, you did; No, you didn't" in other words, you're a petty squabbler and not worth debating. So enjoy your 'win, or last laugh, don't expect me to reply after it.
Take a look at any of the exchanges between myself and goodmale; those are my experiences. It will require some filtering on your part as I do not converse with goodmale in every exchange.
My reasons are that he is incoherent in his posting, is inconsistent from point to point, and lacks sufficient understanding to properly respond to most debates in the first place; as such, it's a fairly safe bet that he will either lose any given debate outright, or simply fail to elucidate his stance sufficiently to even establish his side, therefore losing by default.
Yeah... go ahead. He just sent me a message claiming I was Hellno's alt account. He's obviously an extra account of someone I don't get along with... which means, troll... so go ahead and feed him lol.
Just you and Prod... Or maybe Slengdu is you. If that were the case, then you'd be the only one to have ever suggested that we were the same person... At least that I know of.
Goodmale, goodmale, goodmale.... You give me head aches. we've been over this. After I refuted your points, you raised the same points, in a different way. I then refuted them, again in a different way, Then I believe once more before I grew tired, and added in a random sentence, than immediately following that random sentence, I asked if you caught that sentence. You went on to raise your saem points, again in yet another way. I called you out, stating you don't read my arguments so theirs no point, you raised your tired points again. I gave you three attempts to repeat the wacky sentence in that perfectly structured argument, before giving you a new wacky sentence, followed by an attempt at getting you to repeat it. You copy pasted my whole argument, then i said "Repeat the wacky sentence, or I will know you are not reading my arguments, and will not reply to you." You neglected to, again.
That is an exact play by play, and if you want the proof, it's all in the link. The debate where you neglected reading my arguments, and continually posted the same tired argument.
your wrong again I did answer all your arguments. So if you think that I missed one will we post it and I will answer it. And the only reason why I repost the same thing but in a different way is because you are doing it too.
All you offer is a nay to my yay, a vice to my versa. Never any proof. The proof is there, I've been over. You can go over it if you'd like, but... we've already seen that you don't.
Some time before you banned me from the debate (dick move, BTW), Draw4 inserted a wacky sentence in the middle of a normal post. It was a test to see wether you were reading his posts. You didn't call him out on it, and even after he gave you 3 chances to go back and read it, you didn't respond to it.
Well, obviously I would... or else I wouldn't be making this debate. I think you're assuming I'm talking about you. Thanks for admitting that you lost in our other debate though ;)
You probably don't see how it is. If I can find a fact that disproves what someone was arguing and they decide not to respond to that particular point... or they just ignore the argument entirely, then I can assume I won.
Do you choose to live in ignorance or do you realize when you've lost, but just decide not to respond?
yes and no, Example If I am trying to debate on something that I have not much understanding on. I could be wrong but still I keep debating with someone that has more experience with the topic. So I am not annoyed if he stops arguing with me because I don't stop. Example is over. I feel the same way when people try to argue with me on something that I know more about and there just doing it because they don't want to say I been defeated. Thats why I don't post anything on something I don't know much about.
It annoys me when they give up at the first hurdle. No backbone. Rather fight a narcissist and have them spit in my face telling me they would have won if life was fair than fight a coward who is so humble and friendly that I wonder why they even consider themselves worthy of debating to begin with.
When people can't admit that I'm right, it means that they can't admit that they are wrong. If they can't do that then they are going to have a very frustrating life because the facts won't change any more than they will.
People who refuse to admit when they are wrong become their own worst enemies.
Again, it's not my verision of Jesus. It's the actual Jesus that lived and breathed on this earth. It's the right one because of what He proclamined. He also proved what He said by dying on the cross for our sins and rising from the grave.
Not really. In my experience, it's very rare for even a very skilled debater to actually sway his or her opponents position. I've conceded debates before, but it's a rare occurrence.
For me, there are two kinds of debates: subjects I'm passionate about, and intellectual exploration. For the latter, the debate itself is generally its own reward, and I don't need my opponent to tell me I was right. For the former, the intent is never to sway the person I'm debating (usually a fruitless endeavor), but rather to gain popular support; if I've put together a lucid argument that is largely airtight (big if there..) then I again don't need my opponent to tell me I was right; if I was, the audience already knows.
Actually, I lied, there's a third kind of debate: silly ones where I feed the trolls. When I look back on those, I'm always genuinely sorry, but I keep doing it, always getting caught up in the amusement of the moment, so it's a hollow apology.
When they just drop it and don't concede or anything, that doesn't bother me.
When they respond by trying another angle, that doesn't bother me either.
But when they stick to their guns and refuse to acknowledge a good point, or worse try to state that a relevant point is not in fact relevant and doesn't count, I'll admit to getting a little irritated.
Of course, some would suggest that I've never disproved anyone regarding anything :P
But when they stick to their guns and refuse to acknowledge a good point, or worse try to state that a relevant point is not in fact relevant and doesn't count, I'll admit to getting a little irritated
